Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[EMan]

...5. Are there "advantageous" civs to be warmongering (ie have you found that one HAS to be a militaristic civ, or would one be successful as e.g. scientific/industrious civ as well?)...

Egyptians are Industrious & Religious.....so they can work faster and change governments quickly......However, IMO, the best advantage is that they can build War Chariots (almost as good as Horsemen) early on......for only 20 shields each!

At Regent level, once you've built your core cities (viz. cities that are minimally corrupt), build some barracks (you must produce veterans), make sure you've got a road to the Horse resource, build your War Chariots........and Conquer the World!

 

[Scratcher]

Bartleby, Aabraxan and EMan have made some very good points. I can only add that trading is very important at the beginning of the game. It really pays to send out exploring warriors, curraghs or galleys right from the get go, and find those other civs. To get early techs by trading, to keep the AI broke, to find the goody huts. All this really helps to put you in a strong position from the start of the game.

 

[sercer88]

Bartleby, Aabraxan and EMan have made some very good points. I can only add that trading is very important at the beginning of the game. It really pays to send out exploring warriors, curraghs or galleys right from the get go, and find those other civs. To get early techs by trading, to keep the AI broke, to find the goody huts. All this really helps to put you in a strong position from the start of the game.

I bolded the part I am talking about here...

So, you are saying that a deal that might not be the best of deals (in terms of immediate return) but breaks them of all their available money would be good? I seem to recall a TDG where our team had a chance to buy a tech from someone for a huge sum of money, but the trainer (Bede) said not to because that would not be best for us...how can you tell when to make the trade or not?

 

[Aabraxan]

So, you are saying that a deal that might not be the best of deals (in terms of immediate return) but breaks them of all their available money would be good? I seem to recall a TDG where our team had a chance to buy a tech from someone for a huge sum of money, but the trainer (Bede) said not to because that would not be best for us...how can you tell when to make the trade or not?

I think it depends on your goals. If you're shooting for a Conquest victory, keeping the AI makes sense, because you don't want the AI to be able to upgrade units. OTOH, if you're shooting for a fast SS victory, you don't necessarily want to break the AI, especially if you want the AI to do some of the research for you. Also, I find it helpful to keep the AI broke during the early game, because I tend to "hit the wall" entering the Middle Ages, and I don't want the AI pulling into the MA too far ahead of me.

 

[PaperBeetle]

But on the other hand, in the early stages of the game it is often quite safe to give the AI large lump sums, because they have almost no way of spending it; they don't really have any expenses and in despotism they can't spend it on rush-building (which is where post-despotic AI throw away most of their cash). So you can usually give your cash away and expect it to sit in the recipient's treasury until you have something to buy it back with. It may get traded to another AI of course, but then it is still available to you.

 

[Eukaryote]

Why does aircraft have a "rate of fire?" What does that do? And why do they have attack and defense values? Does that have something to do with how good it will be at air supirority?

 

[sercer88]

Why does aircraft have a "rate of fire?" What does that do?

that determines how many times on that 1 attack it can knock off a hit-point
(for example, with a bomber of rate: 2, it can knock up to 2 hp off the unit it was shot at.)

And why do they have attack and defense values? Does that have something to do with how good it will be at air supirority?

Yes, I believe the fighter's attack value and the bomber's defense values are taken into account when a bomber is intercepted

 

[plip]

Hi
I want to punish a civ but do not need its territory. I plan to unload troops next to 3 coastal cities, capture them, starve them and finally abandon them. I thought that, apart from being exciting, the AI will not build other cities there if the cultural border still covers the area where the cities were.
Do you think it's a good strategy to weaken this civ if I don't want to settle there? Maybe the starving process will be a bit long...
What do you do in this case?
Thanks !

 

[sercer88]

what's with toying with them? Why not wipe them out?

 

[Scratcher]

When going for a conquest or domination victory, I do not need the AI to keep up with me (or me with them) in the tech pace. So when a civ has researched a tech I do not have, I will trade for this with a tech (or two) that they do not have and then sell these techs (or one of them) to all the other civs who have some gold. So basically I sell the same tech to every civ and get all their gold and the techs I do not have. When the AI have no or little gold, they can not trade amongst themselves and they have to do all their own research or get the techs from me. So trading, especially in the early game, can greatly improve your game paly.

 

[Bartleby]

Hi
I want to punish a civ but do not need its territory. I plan to unload troops next to 3 coastal cities, capture them, starve them and finally abandon them. I thought that, apart from being exciting, the AI will not build other cities there if the cultural border still covers the area where the cities were.
Do you think it's a good strategy to weaken this civ if I don't want to settle there? Maybe the starving process will be a bit long...
What do you do in this case?
Thanks !

Why capture/starve/abandon? just raze. But, they will found the cities again though.
Personally, I would either eliminate the offending civ, or beat them down to one city and surround that so they can't expand again.

 

[plip]

@Bartleby : reminds me Civ 1, when I used to stick civs on islands... that was great.
About starve/ abandon city, I read somewhere that razing cities caused very bad reputation, that's why I planned to do so.
@Sercer 88 : But still, the question is : what will I do with empty space? I hate to see other civs settling on the battle field without any logic, that's why I thought that toying could have been a good compromise (between coherent international borders and uh.. warmongering)

 

[Bartleby]

You are sort of right, razing cities does make the AI hate you, but it's important to distinguish between attitude and reputation; If you have a bad reputation, this is caused by breaking deals, it will make the AI stop trading with you on a per-turn basis. The AI attitude only matters if you want them to vote for you in the UN election, if/when that comes around.

 

[Aabraxan]

@Bartleby : reminds me Civ 1, when I used to stick civs on islands... that was great.
About starve/ abandon city, I read somewhere that razing cities caused very bad reputation, that's why I planned to do so.

Razing makes the AI mad, but so does abandoning citizens full of foreigners, IIRC. Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly what this does, because I never do it. (Someone help me out here.)

Also, with the capture/starve/abandon plan, you also miss out on what is (IMO) one of the most important features of a razing strategy: slaves. You don't get any slaves by abandoning cities. You can (but do not always) get slaves by razing.

@Sercer 88 : But still, the question is : what will I do with empty space?

Fill it with your own cities. Even if they're so far from your core that they're 90% corrupt, they're worth something.

 

[Aabraxan]

What's the upkeep cost on a bank?

 

[Bartleby]

My guess is two.

 

[sercer88]

What's the upkeep cost on a bank?

just checked conquests editor...maintenance for a bank is only 1.

 

[Bartleby]

I do apologise.

 

[plip]

Thanks guys for your quick answers!

 

[splunge the 2nd]

OK, easy question.
I formed a milatary alliance with the Aztecs to fight the Mayans (probably poor decision as they didn't help any, I gave tem horses which may come back to bite me...).
I've accomplished my war aims: the Mayans are neutralized, having no more cities on the continent I dominate, and I can get a nice deal for signing a peace treaty with them.

My question is how do I know if my alliance with the Aztecs is still active and how do I cancel it so as to avoid a reputation hit when I sign a treaty with Mayans? My next rival is the Aztecs and I want to declare on them next.

Thanks in advance.